Who would have guessed that there might be some intriguing and possibly good news related to the state budget during these difficult economic times?

Like a fortune hidden in plain sight,former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky has written an opinion that says a 1991 law that limits increases in the state’s general fund isn’t protected by the state constitution, as has been thought.

If true, the state can finally rid itself of a formula that has contributed to the tangled mess known as Colorado’s budget. It may not be a politically popular move with some, but it’s necessary.

The finding, The Post’s Tim Hoover reports, could allow lawmakers to override the limit in those years when cash flow isn’t a problem. It won’t help Colorado this year, when lawmakers are slashing hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget because revenues are down. But when better days return, the finding could help accelerate the renewal of vital programs.

The limit is known as Arveschoug- Bird, named after its sponsoring lawmakers. Its purpose is to keep the state’s budget on a tight leash. It sets a 6 percent cap on the amount of new spending lawmakers can budget from the general fund, which bankrolls most operating costs.

To be fair, the law kept Colorado from growing way too big during flush years, and that would have led to even more drastic cuts in lean years. Yet, the law also makes it difficult to recover from those lean years.

To use Hoover’s example: Say the state spent $100 last year, but tax collections during this year’s recession dropped to $80. Let’s say the economy comes roaring back. Arveschoug-Bird would set the 6 percent cap not on the more-normal $100 level, but on the prior, recessionary level of $80.

Lawmakers hoping to re-hire prison guards or help the families of developmentally disabled children could then spend only at the near-recessionary level of $84.80.

(Voters in 2005 erased an even more nefarious “ratchet” from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.)

Speaking of TABOR — stay with us now — voters in 1992 cemented that measure in the constitution. Arveschoug-Bird was passed by lawmakers as a statutory measure. For the past 17 years, lawmakers have assumed that TABOR’s language required that the 6 percent cap be protected by the constitution as well, meaning only a vote of the people could reverse it. Dubofsky may have found a work-around.

TABOR, for all its ills, has many supporters, and if lawmakers pass a measure that strips Arveschoug- Bird’s limit, the matter likely will end up in the courts. It’s just one of the budget constraints state lawmakers must address if they ever want to restore some fiscal sanity to Colorado.

If they can bypass the 6 percent cap that one lawmaker smartly called “outmoded and outdated” through legislation, they should.

But that shouldn’t preclude them from building a coalition to tackle TABOR, and ask voters to transfer its maddening restrictions from the law books to the history books.

Injection sites about safety, providing a path to recover Re: “Safe injection site bill shelved,” Feb. 20 news story Understandably, a person’s first reaction to providing safe injection sites for drug users might seem ludicrous. But, upon educating oneself and learning more about the research and purpose behind the sites, safety for all is the No. 1 premise. Republican minority...

The Catholic dioceses of Colorado should have reported to authorities any and all accusations of sexual abuse decades ago, but we must praise the development that finally came Tuesday when church officials announced they will open their records for scrutiny.